(June 28, 2009 at 3:04 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: To quote Hitchens on this: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."Absolutely. Convenient too, but ultimately untrue for scientific assertion.
You're assuming a strong claim ie scientific claim when none is made. The scientific position is strong and clear. Philosophically/ theologically this isn't the case. Scientific philosophy requires the annihilation of nonscientific philosophy to make sense. If history couldbe re-written then that would be very helpful.
A logical debate does not require evidence. Sorry to burst your bubble. The clearer the facts the less reasoning there needs to be to reach a conclusion. In theology with it's completely unknowable conclusions complex reasoning is required.
The demanding of evidence from an assertion of a being that necessarily can have no proof remains the ultimate in logical fallacies for me. Science, it seems, will always have the bit of string to pull connected the boot which kicks it in the ass.
@ Kyu: All of those four bullet points you made were dismissed royally with the fact that evidence is everywhere and nowhere.
